G.R. No. L-49809 June 30, 1980
SPOUSES WILLIAM C. PFLEIDER and MADALENA S. PFLEIDER, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE OSCAR R. VICTORIANO, ETC., SPOUSES POTENCIANO A. PALANCA and HERMELINA PULMONES and COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH DIVISION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the spouses Pfleider, appealed a trial court decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). After complying with the trial court’s order to amend their record on appeal, they filed a special civil action (CA-G.R. No. SP-07561) with the CA’s Fourth Division, questioning the very order they had obeyed. The trial court approved the amended record, and the appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 63411-R with the CA’s Ninth Division. The CA Clerk of Court notified petitioners to pay docket fees and submit forty printed copies of the record on appeal within sixty days. Petitioners paid the fees but failed to submit the printed record. Instead, they filed a manifestation stating they could not comply pending resolution of their separate petition in the Fourth Division.
The Ninth Division dismissed the main appeal for failure to submit the required printed record. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court but later moved to withdraw it after the CA issued a resolution granting their motion for reconsideration and suspending the period for submission. Subsequently, the CA set aside that favorable resolution, reinstating the dismissal. Petitioners then moved to revive their Supreme Court petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for failure to submit the required printed record on appeal within the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals acted correctly. The Supreme Court denied the petition for being filed out of time and for lack of merit. Procedurally, the petition for certiorari was filed beyond the 15-day period from notice of the CA resolution denying reconsideration. On the substantive issue, the Rules of Court impose upon the appellant the mandatory duty to submit the required copies of the record on appeal within the prescribed period. The CA possesses the implicit power to dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with this duty. The pendency of petitioners’ separate special civil action (CA-G.R. No. SP-07561) did not justify their refusal to comply with the submission requirement in the main appeal, nor did it obligate the CA to suspend the period for compliance. The Supreme Court noted that petitioners had assumed contradictory postures by complying with the trial court’s amendment order and then challenging it. The Court also directed the CA Clerk of Court to revise its forms to conform with the amended rules, which require only twelve copies for the court and two for the appellee, and allow typewritten records.